2016 Committee Lunch
Date: Wednesday 2nd week, Hilary 2016 (2016-01-27)Attendance
Present: Anne Williamson (President), Cealach McKeating (Vice-President (Administrative)), Steven Rose (Secretary), Darryl Braier-Lorimer (Treasurer), Hugo Monnery (Lindsay), Meg Peyton-Jones (Dr. WHO), James Letten (Dr. WHO), Frederick Potts (Foody), Zachary Leather (Foody), Xavier Greenwood (Sports Rep), Helen Davies (Sports Rep), Joseph Lee (Academic Affairs and Careers Officer), Alberto Andrade (Academic Affairs and Careers Officer), Daisy Cutts (Access and Admissions Officer), Elliot Jones (Affiliations Officer), Rivka Shaw (Charities and RAG Officer), Sophie Conquest (Charities and RAG Officer), Ruby Breward (Design & Maintenance Officer), Molly Rogers (Student Disabilities Officer), Xavier Cohen (Entz Officer), Hubert Au (Ethnic Minorities Officer), Thitapa Haritaworn (Ethnic Minorities Officer), Laura Bossino (International Students Officer), Nicholas Halterman (International Students Officer), Ele Saltmarsh (LGBTQ Officer), Rory Meryon (LGBTQ Officer), Andrew Truong (Website & Computing Officer), Daisy Cockrean (Women's Officer), Rachael Ince-Kitson (Women's Officer)
Absent with apologies: Emily Webb (Access and Admissions Officer), Chilla Knight (Environment & Ethics Officer)
Absent without explanation: Peter Sayer (Design & Maintenance Officer), Indigo Wilde (Entz Officer), Aidan Balfe (Environment & Ethics Officer), Lewis Scott (John de Balliol), Simon Kelly (John de Balliol)
Agenda
1. Matters Arising
2. Facebook page administration [Meg & James]
3. Balliol/ New College joint welfare event [Meg & James]
4. Welfare naming [Meg]
5. Pantry Structure [Freddy]
6. Food bank [Sophie & Rivka]
7. JCR Aromatherapy Stuff [Rachael & Ruby]
8. Budgets [Darryl]
9. PS4 Controller [Darryl]
10. Danish Girl viewing [Ele & Rory]
11. Bop Cleanup [Cealach]
12. Graffiti [Cealach]
13. Accessible Jowett space [Rachael & Daisy]
14. AOB
Minutes
Annie welcomed the Committee.
1. No matters were arising.
Annie explained that the minutes are posted on the JCR Website each week, but that in addition Ste has started posting a summary of Committee Lunches for interested members of the JCR too lazy to read the minutes (or busy doing their degree, whatever). She reminded the Committee that all members of the JCR are welcome to attend Committee Lunches, but offered the opinion that posting a summary is a good way of keeping the JCR informed.
2. Meg reminded people of the debate on Facebook regarding how the page should be administered (in particular concerning the removal of posts), and suggested that we should discuss establishing some common procedure. She explained that it was discussed at Welfare Subcommittee the adding of a pinned post to remind people to be respectful, and establishing a convention that if one has an issue with something posted, they should contact the individual concerned, or if they prefer, a member of Welfare Subcommittee to discuss amending and removing the offending post (in the expectation that most people would respond positively to such a request).
James said that he believes this separates powers well and preserves anonymity.
Meg explained that people have an issue with things being deleted because of a 'right to free speech,' hence finding consent for deleting posts is preferable to simply removing them.
James asked if people were happy with this procedure.
Cealach thought it was a good idea, but thought that it was valuable highlighting that people need not justify their welfare concern when contacting Welfare Subcommittee. James agreed that this should be reiterated in the pinned post.
Xav G asked if the issue of bop-clean-upgate had been followed up by Welfare Subcommittee. Meg said that it had not. Xav C said there were 'no particular bones to pick,' but rather there needs to be a greater widespread appreciation of the demands on the Entz and that attendees of bops should be appropriately respectful; however he is optimistic that in the future these concerns won't arise again, having been highlighted by the recent bop.
Meg reminded people that the use of Facebook was discussed last year in a GM.
Hugo asked if there was anything constitutional about policy for vetting. There is not. No idea why. Ste said as much. He suggested that there should be a discussion within the JCR about including such provisions within our Governing Documents.
James explained that the current approach had only been established by consensus and precedent, and agreed with Hugo that amending the Governing Documents to include provisions for Facebook page administration should be left to a GM.
Daisy offered that if the changes to the Governing Documents were to establish new mandates to current offices, this would require a change to the Standing Orders (rather than the Constitution).
James replied that it mandates individuals with concerns, rather than particular offices.
Cealach responded that 'mandated' is perhaps an inappropriate and inflexible word.
Meg suggested that the individuals concerned with such procedure would be anyone on Welfare Subcommittee.
Annie reminded people that Officers can bring reports to a GM without bringing a motion, and this would perhaps be appropriate for Meg and James to do in the coming GM.
Molly reminded people that James is only going to post the pinned post after it has been discussed and approved by Welfare Subcommittee. She suggested that if people thought it was a discussion to be had by the entire Committee they should say so, however this received no reply.
Molly asked if the Governing Documents made any reference to Facebook and how we administer the page, Ste said 'Oh, god no, there's literally nothing,'; she suggested that there possibly should be.
James explained the post would establish a precedent rather than a 'policy' as such.
James asked if an officers report could contain a straw poll on JCR opinion of changes to the Governing Documents, which Annie replied that it could.
Annie reminded people that there's a current pinned post and asked if this could be incorporated in that, which seemed to receive approval from Meg and James.
3. James explained that he has been involved in conversations with the Welfare officer at New College, who would like a joint Balliol-New College event, hopefully to occur on Saturday of 5th week to round off the Balliol Welfare week. He explained that ideas like a barbecue and a Sports Day were thought about, but were quickly rejected once they remembered that 5th week is in February. He explained that the current idea is some sort of 'artsy get-together.' New College have a band who have expressed an interest in playing some funk and jazz at the event, and we have the beginnings of a jazz band in Balliol which could participate. James explained his desire to find £100 to fund the event. He explained that it would not be described as a 'welfare' event, which this humble secretary anticipates may tie into the next item on the agenda. James asked if people have ideas and suggestions.
Molly asked if it would be an afternoon event, as it would be occurring on the same day as the charity musical. James replied that it would be for this reason.
Daisy suggested taking it to Arts Subcommittee for assistance. James responded positively to the suggestion, and asked if she believed that they would be keen to offer assistance. Daisy pointed out that given they were keen enough to run for Arts Subcommittee, they'd probably be interested in an arts-based event.
James asked who organised meetings of the Arts Subcommittee. Daisy struck fear into the very centre of Ste's heart by suggesting that it was his job to organise the meetings (oh dear! Have I dropped a ball of which I was entirely unaware?!) but Darryl saved the day by responding that it is in fact his job (oh thank goodness).
Annie reminded the Committee that to pass a sum of £100, a motion would have to be passed at a GM, mentioning that there are two GMs between the time of the meeting and Saturday of 5th week (that is, the GMs in 3rd and 5th week). Ste offered the fact that £100 can be passed retroactively in a GM, however it was pointed out that this would leave Meg and James out of pocket.
4. Meg apologised for having so many items. No worries, Meg. She explained that the name Dr WHO is now inaccurate (the H standing for Housing, which now – rather predictably - falls under the remit of the Housing Officer. She offered the possibility of changing the H to stand for 'Health' (this humble Secretary believes that the general consensus is that the Committee really doesn't want to lose the name Dr WHO in the Constitution).
She also mentioned that the naming of 'welfare tea' may not be entirely appropriate, and suggested that the naming 'welfare tea' could be replaced by 'JCR tea' (or indeed any alternative that didn't reference 'welfare'), and suggested this may also be a problem for the naming of Dr WHO.
Nicky explained that his experience as a new student was that the naming 'welfare tea' had been confusing for him and new students, as it had lead them to believe that it was there for people with specific welfare concerns, and hence an approach involving replacing occurrences of the word 'welfare' with the word 'well-being' would be appropriate.
Zack suggested that 'Well-being and Health Officer' would be a beneficial change, but 'well-being tea' sounds silly, and expressed his support for 'JCR tea.'
Darryl had no opinion, but expressed on behalf of Tom Posa (previous Dr WHO) the approval of the naming 'Welfare and Health Officer.'
Ruby suggested a clearer publicising approach for welfare tea would be helpful in clarifying to the JCR that welfare tea was for everybody, and not to address specific welfare concerns.
James said that he had a discussion with a fresher who had explained that they had not went to welfare tea as they were not in need of welfare, and believed that their attendance would therefore not be appropriate.
Ruby suggested that such experience would imply the need for a publicising approach that clarified this.
Meg suggested that it either needs a publicising approach based on clearing up this misconception, or simply renaming for clarity.
Daisy suggested renaming welfare tea accomplishes both goals if done properly.
Annie suggested that the renaming of 'welfare tea' may require changes to the Governing Documents, and hence would require being brought to a GM. Ste replied that it definitely wouldn't require changes to the Constitution, and while it's plausible that it requires a change to the Standing Orders, he feels that it's unlikely, a point with which Daisy Cutts agreed.
James suggested we conduct a straw poll to ascertain Committee opinion on preference between the words 'welfare' and 'wellbeing' in the context of the Dr WHO name.
Molly suggested that the renaming of welfare tea should be brought to a GM even if it doesn't require changes to the Governing Documents, as it is a matter that concerns the whole JCR, a point with which James agreed.
Hubert asked if the name change would affect just Dr WHO, or if this re-branding would be for the entirety of Welfare Subcommittee.
James suggested that if people want an all over re-brand, he'd be happy to discuss that. He suggested we conduct a straw poll for now simply about the naming of Dr WHO.
Xav G asked what difference James found between the words 'welfare' and 'well-being' in this context.
James explained that in wider use, 'welfare' typically means 'pro-actively looking after people when there might be an issue,' whereas in Balliol, it simply refers to the JCR community, and hence a re-brand would be a chance to create something a little less specific. He pointed out that Bruce had suggested a similar point.
Annie recommended that whatever the Committee consensus, it would be worth discussing in a GM, and suggested that it's worth not conducting a straw poll, and instead simply discussing it with the JCR.
James agreed.
5. Freddy explained that he wanted to differentiate wages corresponding to roles, noting that working at the front (as in, at the till) is relatively simple (though this humble Secretary still managed to mess it up when he's done it, but whatever), whereas working at the back (that is; preparing and serving food) is quite demanding. He said that wages for both roles are currently £5.30 an hour; he'd like to raise the wage of working at the back to around £7 an hour to greater incentivise performing the more demanding a work, a sneaky tactic typically employed in most capitalist societies.
He also explained that he'd like to create a 'Foodie Subcommittee.' He explained that the role of Foodie is a big job, and despite all the help he has received (nods to Darryl and Guy), he believes that drawing in more people to help would be invaluable. He also believes it would increase JCR participation, as well as democracy within the JCR, as it increases the breadth of opinion influencing Pantry.
Zack suggested this has become less immediately relevant with the advent of the new permanent member of staff (it should be noted in the institutional memory that the new member of staff bakes incredible cookies), and suggested that the Foodie Subcommittee would only act when Pantry didn't have a permanent member of staff. He explained that the proposed five members of Foodie Subcommittee would be mandated for one shift working at the back of Pantry per week each, as this – in tandem with the Foodie's performing a shift at the back a week - would cover shifts for the entire week. He explained that the idea is that Foodie Subcommittee members would be trained in food safety so that they could work in the back; pointing out to the Committee that this would require the passing of money. He explained that currently only a small number of people can work at the back because only a small number of people have had the relevant training, which is a limitation to the effective and consistent running of Pantry. He explained that in this vision, the role of Foodie would become more concerned with creating menus and and managing finances, and that the Foodie Subcommittee would ease pressure to 'man the ships.' He explained that this would become particularly relevant in Trinity if we can't find a new member of staff for the term, meaning training would have to occur in the last two weeks of Hilary, and hence the motions would have to be passed soon.
Richard suggested that the structure sounds similar to the current structure of bar management, with the Foodie Subcommittee sounding similar to the Duckworths, and hence a precedent has already been established for such organisation.
Hugo asked Darryl how increasing wages would affect Pantry’s chances to break even. Darryl said that he is confident the impact of a wage increase wouldn’t be too damaging. Zack suggested breaking even is easier when you're open rather than closed. Fair.
Cealach offered that in here experience, those working at the back in Pantry have typically been friends of the incumbent Foodies, and expressed concerns that a wage increase would be benefitting people for their relationships with Committee unfairly.
Meg replied that she believes that the way wages are structured should not be affected by worries as to who will be earning the money, but rather that the wages should be structured on the basis that different jobs have different demands.
Daisy asked if the Foodie Subcommittee would be elected by the JCR. Freddy replied that this is indeed how he imagines it occurring.
Cealach suggested that if the Foodie Subcommittee were to be elected, then the establishment of the Committee would have to happen relatively soon as elections take time.
Zack asked if it was asking too much to hope that five people would wish to run for Foodie Subcommittee. Cealach suggested that there is likely to be little trouble in finding people interested in the positions should the wage for working at the back of pantry increase. Annie offered the information that should not all positions go unfilled, this need not be a problem, in the same way that the Entz Subcommittee is not currently filled.
6. Ruby explained that she thinks that a JCR craft session aimed at teaching people how to make aromatherapy bars – which could be used to help focus, or to aid sleep - would be a nice community activity for the JCR, as it’s not a particularly difficult process (she did then outline the process, but this humble Secretary is definitely not minuting that; if you’re particularly interest, attend the JCR craft session). She told the Committee that her cost estimations have suggested that £50 would cover the cost of the session; there was an approximate cost of about £30 for the basics (things such as tubes and whatnot), and essential oils are about £2 each.
Nicky asked how many people the budget of £50 would accommodate. Ruby replied that this would buy around 50 tubes worth of materials. She explained that she intended to gauge interest via Facebook before the session.
Hugo asked whether the costs for similar future activities would be reduced by this initial expenditure, or if all of the materials are used up and must be replaced. Ruby replied that it’s cheaper to buy the wax that is used in some capacity that I don't fully understand in bulk, so this purchase would probably be for twice the required amount of wax, and also that the tubes are reusable and durable and are unlikely to need replacing, so yes.
Molly asked if there was a provisional date for the event. Meg and James suggested that 7th week would be an appropriate date as this would coincide with Women’s tea in the JCR. Molly replied that the JCR is constantly struggling to find non-food based events, and suggested that we separate this event from Women’s tea. Nick suggested that this sounds like an event that would be quite appropriate for Welfare week, and James offered that the days Tuesday or Wednesday would be open for such an event. The Committee agreed that this was a good date.
The Committee seemed very ready to move on, until Ruby pointed out that the Committee had not yet passed the money.
The Committee passed the money.
7. Sophie told the Committee that currently there are other colleges implementing a scheme of the collection of non-perishable food items to donate to local food banks. She suggested that Balliol should run a similar scheme, actively encouraging its members to purchase one extra item of food when shopping to donate.
Rivka said that there is not yet a provisional charity in mind, and wanted to find out if there were any queries and suggestions for the placement of the box (in particular, relating to concerns that food may be stolen).
Meg offered that a food drive currently occurs usually at the ends of terms, and that it may be worth discussing the food bank idea with people in the JCR who have had previous experience running this scheme. Rivka explained that she feels this is a different project, as it would be a continuous effort.
Richard expressed his approval for such a scheme, but offered his belief that there aren’t going to be hobs in college next year, and hence people are unlikely to be buying food, however Annie informed Richard that this was not in fact the case, and there are going to be hobs in College next year. Richard acquiesced but pointed out that people don’t typically tend to buy that much food in Balliol due to the availability of Hall, so the push would have to be encouraging people to go out of their way to select an extra item of food atypical from their usual shopping.
Molly offered the information that typically the end-of-term food collection box has typically been located in the foyer outside of the JCR, and suggested that it may be worth putting a food collection box on top of the cupboard in the JCR near pantry so that it can be observed by people working in Pantry.
Joseph offered the idea of targeting residents of Jowett in such a food drive, as the quality of the kitchens and general culture of Jowett lead to a higher likelihood of purchasing food when shopping.
Ploy replied that not all charities accept perishable food as donations, and this is the food typically purchased by people in Jowett due to the availability of fridges, however Ruby replied that some charities definitely do accept perishable food items, and while it may be slightly more difficult to donate owing to transport, this is still viable.
Zack asked if Pantry could be involved in the project in any capacity. Sophie said that this possibility had been suggested in the charities committee meetings, however the discussion focused on whether the health and safety obstacles would be too great, and hence the use of excess food from Pantry is something that requires greater investigation.
Annie suggested that the Consensus of the Committee was an approval for the establishment of a donation box for non-perishable food items, and that the donation of perishable food items is a matter to be investigated later, an observation with which the Committee agreed.
8. Ele reminded the Committee that the same evening, there were plans for members of the JCR to view the Danish Girl at the cinema; the individuals involved are each paying £2.50, and the JCR is subsidising the rest of the cost of the ticket, and hence the LGBTQ office would like to pass £50 to be spent on this.
Annie reminded Ele that the LGBTQ Reps have a budget of £50, however Ele replied that they had also used this budget in subsidising the cost of the tickets.
Xav C noted that some people in the JCR have expressed issues with the film relating to a trans character being played by a cisgendered actor. He noted that the Committee often spends money without unanimous consent, however offered that this may be a factor worth including in the discussion. Ele replied that she had also spoken to people who believe the film may be problematic, however she was not aware of anyone who identified as trans having taken issue, and she does not want to speak for a community of which she is not a part. She explained that on a wider scale, the positive reception of a film in which the protagonist is trans can only be a positive thing, as a negative reception could indicate to the film industry that audiences are not interested in films with trans characters. Ruby suggested that it may perhaps be worthwhile to host a discussion group after the film relating to these issues, which was welcomed by Ele.
They re-advertised the outing after Molly asked when the group would be leaving, following which the Committee passed the money with the inclusion of a discussion group afterwards.
9. Darryl asked if people were aware of their budgets or lack thereof, and how to access them.
Richard asked if he has a budget. “No.” “Cool.”
Zack asked if he had a budget. Darryl told him that he has “the entire resources of Pantry,” however when asked further, he told Zack that excess expenditure is included in ‘Pantry costs.’
Darryl raised that the Drama Soc currently has a budget that, since it is earmarked for Drama Soc, we currently don’t have access to. This would be reasonable, except it was also noted that we currently don’t have a Drama Soc, and suggested that we ask Connor to run Drama Soc. Cealach offered the point of information that Connor only didn’t run for Drama Soc because he assumed that he didn’t have to, and was under the impression that was still the President. Annie said that the Committee will run co-options for this role.
10. Darryl asked for £15 to replace a broken charger for PS4 controllers. The Committee passed the money.
11. Cealach reported to the Committee that the bop cleanup was ‘terrible.’ She suggested that the Committee ask the Junior Deans to be involved slightly earlier to assist in emptying the JCR at the end of the bop. She also asked the Committee to, in future, remain at the end of bops to assist in the clearing of the JCR (at which point, those not on cleanup duty would be free to leave). She suggested that the sharing of the responsibility for bop cleanup should be more equitably distributed, as there is no reason to expect that the Vice President of the JCR is more equipped than any other member for this role. She suggested a rotating basis of running bop cleanup on the Executive Committee, whilst leaving the Vice President to set up the rotas for the bop clean-ups.
12. Cealach reported to the JCR that there have been two incidents of the signs in the JCR reminding people to leave their used crockery on the thingy outside of pantry being defaced in an impolite way. She asked the Committee to keep a look out for such behaviour, and to encourage the JCR to behave in a respectful way.